Apparently, this motion is the pretext for appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

One of the Bakers' argument was that returning AMH to the Hes would cause substantial harm to AMH, even based on the language in TN Supreme Court ruling.

The TN High Court held that "[e]vidence that A.M.H. will be harmed from a change in custody because she has lived and bonded with the Bakers during the pendency of the litigation does not constitute the substantial harm required to prevent the parents from regaining custody." (emphasis added)

Bakers completely miscontrued the TN Supreme Court ruling. From the TN Supreme Court ruling, the only substantial harm AMH would suffer would be caused by Bakers' holding AMH for years while they knew they had no legal right to do so since 2001. Bakers would be responsible for any harm suffered by AMH during the transition. It was the Bakers who prevented AMH's birth parents to maintain a relationship with AMH, while the birth parents were fighting to visit their daughter over the years.

The High Court's ruling is clear. Any trauma AMH will suffer will not be caused by her birth parents, but by the Bakers. This distinction is important.

The Hes, as natural parents, have superior parental rights over the custody of their own child. Absent substantial harm that may be caused by the Hes, the Hes are entitled to unconditional custody of their child. In this case, there is no evidence that the Hes will cause any harm to the child. Instead, the only forseeable harm will be the result of Bakers holding the child and preventing her birth parents from contacting her. In other words, Bakers are the proximate cause of AMH's harm*.

---YDX

* Although the TN Supreme Court ruling put the part of the blame on the courts' failure to help maintain Hes' relationship with the child, one must admit that the Bakers are the driving force behind the courts' decisions.